Treaties

[Chalaskan]

As a member of an alliance that has tried to follow legalities in light of the desires, I want to point this out.

This war has made it clear on all sides that legalities do not mean !@#$.

What is the point of a treaty if all it can do is hinder your options? If you do not need a treaty to enter into a war with those you feel you are closest to, then why bother?

I propose we forget treaties and just go anarchist. Screw E-lawyering.

[Ogaden]

Treaties are more than anything written promises.

In that, they are dependent upon the honor of the alliance and the bonds of either friendship or obligation they feel towards the alliance they have promised to support.

Because of this, one should not say treaties are worthless, but rather that the promises of some alliances are worth less than others.

[Wilhelm1908]

I agree, I would further add that a many alliances have treaty webs that are so confused. That when a major war happens, they have obligations on both sides, with the unfortunate choice in who to honour and who to betray. It appears many alliances take on a myriad of treaties, without ever thinking they may have to honour all of them at the same time.

[Chalaskan]

I agree, I would further add that a many alliances have treaty webs that are so confused. That when a major war happens, they have obligations on both sides, with the unfortunate choice in who to honour and who to betray. It appears many alliances take on a myriad of treaties, without ever thinking they may have to honour all of them at the same time.

Others take on treaties with an intent to honor but find themselves in a precarious position due to the broad spectrum of those friendships.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Chalaskan

[Tulafaras]

The problem is that most alliances have too many treaties and they are not sufficiently ranked.

e.g. if alliance A has 10 MDPs and is part of 2 Blocks as well, chances are in such a global conflict that their treaties will conflict. Now it becomes a question of what to do? The honorable thing would usually be to stay out of the whole mess and help their allies rebuild afterwards, but that is not always feasible.

The Q was a "test" to write a treaty to supercede all treaties and for a time it worked, but aside from that if you comply with a treaty or not depends on your feelings which is usually subjective.

[Lord of Destruction]

Excuse me for wanting to play a Geo-Political Nation Simulator.

That, and I despise anarchism.

[Monster]

I agree with you. I think it's gone too far. I remember hearing that Sister Midnight said treaties shouldn't be required to do the right thing and they may even constrain you from doing so.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Nausea

[LJ Scott]

The Hedgemony needs paper with which to wipe it's $@!.

Edited April 26, 2009 by LJ Scott

[adhambek]

Treaties are worthless it's the friendship behind thoses peices of paper that have meaning. They should be a paper manifestation of that friendship and not the basis of the friendship. No e-lawyering would prevent me fighting for the alliances who i consider to be my brothers. People got carried away signing treaties as they where under the false impression that it would prevent them being curbstompted. This was during a time when having NS was enough to get you attacked. It didn't people would just cancel the treaties and then curbstomp them.

Edited April 26, 2009 by adhambek

[Tulafaras]

adhambek: the problem is, you might love two alliances, and they might not necessarily love each other. (as happened in the UJW GoD had good ties to both \m/ and NpO but were forced to choose between them since they were at opposing sides).

Some treaties are signed out of fear/necessity those usually aren't worth !@#$. But most treaties are signed out of genuine respect and friendship (at least at the start), but feelings change and then the treaties become worth less and less

[Chalaskan]

Excuse me for wanting to play a Geo-Political Nation Simulator.

That, and I despise anarchism.

The current war scenario is anarchism. I am just the messenger...

[Drostan]

The current war scenario is anarchism. I am just the messenger...

No it's not. Maybe you missed the surrender terms or the countless declarations of war... There is no anarchy going on right now except in the sense that many nations are temporarily in it as a result of fighting. Alliance politics are very much still intact. We've just seen a lot of shuffling. It's not like we have a mass number of nuclear rogues randomly attacking whoever they feel like and there are no unified bodies to subdue them.

You just don't want to bother with the whole political side to this game. But trust me the game would be a lot more boring without the politics. I would say though that things might have gotten too political as of late. But this war has done much to change that. Just because you cannot be bothered with them does not make treaties pointless. Treaties foster trust and cooperation between alliances. The trouble is careless treaty-making and conflicting treaty-making.

[Chalaskan]

No it's not. Maybe you missed the surrender terms or the countless declarations of war... There is no anarchy going on right now except in the sense that many nations are temporarily in it as a result of fighting. Alliance politics are very much still intact. We've just seen a lot of shuffling. It's not like we have a mass number of nuclear rogues randomly attacking whoever they feel like and there are no unified bodies to subdue them.

You just don't want to bother with the whole political side to this game. But trust me the game would be a lot more boring without the politics. I would say though that things might have gotten too political as of late. But this war has done much to change that. Just because you cannot be bothered with them does not make treaties pointless. Treaties foster trust and cooperation between alliances. The trouble is careless treaty-making and conflicting treaty-making.

Alliances are being saluted for entering with no LEGAL cause. Treaties are being broken left and right. The only law this game has had was treaties between alliances.

I disagree with your POV. We are very much in a state of anarchy. I wonder where this will all go, and to what level it will attain before it is all done.

The precedent is being set...treaties don't mean !@#$. Now what?

EDIT: Quite the contrary I am stating a massive political situation. Really, as a single nation...I don't have to bother with the political BS. I am choosing to address it here...

Edited April 26, 2009 by Chalaskan

[Delta1212]

Alliances are being saluted for entering with no LEGAL cause. Treaties are being broken left and right. The only law this game has had was treaties between alliances.

I disagree with your POV. We are very much in a state of anarchy. I wonder where this will all go, and to what level it will attain before it is all done.

The precedent is being set...treaties don't mean !@#$. Now what?

Being set? This has happened in every single war and it gets pointed out every time. This really isn't a new thing. Perhaps you simply haven't noticed.

[Chalaskan]

Being set? This has happened in every single war and it gets pointed out every time. This really isn't a new thing. Perhaps you simply haven't noticed.

If you haven't noticed this is on quite a different scale, including ones between friends. Yes...that may be a difference?

EDIT: wanna address the rest of my post, or you want to just pick pieces?

Edited April 26, 2009 by Chalaskan

[Drostan]

Show me what alliances have entered this war with no legal justification aside from mostly NPO and TORN whose transgression is precisely what started this.

Treaties are being canceled left and right which is a lot different than broken.

There is honestly nothing shockingly new about this war save for the fact that it may allow for power to be slightly more distributed over the surface of Planet Bob instead of so thoroughly concentrated. I see nothing at all that suggests anarchy. Even if there were several treaties broken that hardly qualifies as anarchy. If a few people cheat in a game it's not like the whole game just melts away into madness. I honestly don't think you have a valid point. NPO and TORN have been straining courtesy/decorum for quite a while and this is what has led the community to by and large condemn them. If anything this war is proof that the unwritten rules are still taken seriously. Did you see the massive outpouring of hatred for the "contingent of cowards" when they said they would not defend NPO?

You act as if you have points but so far you've only made bald statements with no specificity. As an independent nation 'the political bs' is the only thing that keeps you alive. If it were not for the political moves being played by those who hold power you would never get an independent nation off the ground as you would be tech-raided into oblivion. If anarchy truly is coming, you'd better get some friends before it eats you alive.

[Chalaskan]

Show me what alliances have entered this war with no legal justification aside from mostly NPO and TORN whose transgression is precisely what started this.

Treaties are being canceled left and right which is a lot different than broken.

There is honestly nothing shockingly new about this war save for the fact that it may allow for power to be slightly more distributed over the surface of Planet Bob instead of so thoroughly concentrated. I see nothing at all that suggests anarchy. Even if there were several treaties broken that hardly qualifies as anarchy. If a few people cheat in a game it's not like the whole game just melts away into madness. I honestly don't think you have a valid point. NPO and TORN have been straining courtesy/decorum for quite a while and this is what has led the community to by and large condemn them. If anything this war is proof that the unwritten rules are still taken seriously. Did you see the massive outpouring of hatred for the "contingent of cowards" when they said they would not defend NPO?

You act as if you have points but so far you've only made bald statements with no specificity. As an independent nation 'the political bs' is the only thing that keeps you alive. If it were not for the political moves being played by those who hold power you would never get an independent nation off the ground as you would be tech-raided into oblivion. If anarchy truly is coming, you'd better get some friends before it eats you alive.

You are naive if you believe that legalities have not been broken in this war on both sides. The amount of treaties being broken even on just our alliances level are tremendous even though we haven't entered this war.

If I need to show you, you need to get more involved with the political part of this game.

[Drostan]

You are naive if you believe that legalities have not been broken in this war on both sides. The amount of treaties being broken even on just our alliances level are tremendous even though we haven't entered this war.

If I need to show you, you need to get more involved with the political part of this game.

If you can't show me then nobody will take your wild statements seriously... Tell me who has broken their treaties in this war? I will be shocked if you can find more than a few examples.

Anyway, you clearly have mad lust to make this into some dramatic tumble into anarchy and I feel like time and reality will do a better job of arguing my case than I could ever.

[SyndicatedINC]

Avalon until now has not had any formal treaties, but I would not say that we operated in the anarchy that you describe. Our policy was very simple and straight forward, but certainly not random or unpredictable. We do what we feel is the honourable thing, and put morally right ABOVE friendship. Put simply we refuse to make promises other than "we will support you if we think you are in the right and need our help". This was to prevent us being forced by treaty to get involved in a curb stomp or to support an ally under attack for something if situation reversed we would be attacking ourselves.

In order to make this more clear we will be demonstrating who we wish to hold with and give such promises to by signing forms of ODPs but nothing that doesn't start with the big 'O' at the front. OPIAT, ONAP, ODP, ODAP, etc etc.

However from our role play perspective, the idea that there is a difference between a PIAT and a MDAP is kind of silly. A friend is a friend. Who wouldn't ride with them in a righteous crusade to hell if they needed it? Every friend is EVERY treaty to us, just prefaced with "optional, in the case of a dishonourable cause" . The only reason we attach acronyms to it is for our friends and the greater cyberverse who only function in such terms.

[Chalaskan]

If you can't show me then nobody will take your wild statements seriously... Tell me who has broken their treaties in this war? I will be shocked if you can find more than a few examples.

Anyway, you clearly have mad lust to make this into some dramatic tumble into anarchy and I feel like time and reality will do a better job of arguing my case than I could ever.

The amount of treaty being broken is tremendous. The fact you have no idea what is happening, or has happened really is a testament to your naivety.

I'm not gonna point out the hundreds of laws broken during this war. If you believe there are few, you really have no clue.

You're right, time will tell.

As far as a single alliance having views without anarchy, that is comprehensible.

My question to the CN community, is what are the new laws? The old ones have obviously been obliviated.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Chalaskan

[Drostan]

Avalon until now has not had any formal treaties, but I would not say that we operated in the anarchy that you describe. Our policy was very simple and straight forward, but certainly not random or unpredictable. We do what we feel is the honourable thing, and put morally right ABOVE friendship. Put simply we refuse to make promises other than "we will support you if we think you are in the right and need our help". This was to prevent us being forced by treaty to get involved in a curb stomp or to support an ally under attack for something if situation reversed we would be attacking ourselves.

In order to make this more clear we will be demonstrating who we wish to hold with and give such promises to by signing forms of ODPs but nothing that doesn't start with the big 'O' at the front. OPIAT, ONAP, ODP, ODAP, etc etc.

However from our role play perspective, the idea that there is a difference between a PIAT and a MDAP is kind of silly. A friend is a friend. Who wouldn't ride with them in a righteous crusade to hell if they needed it? Every friend is EVERY treaty to us, just prefaced with "optional, in the case of a dishonourable cause" . The only reason we attach acronyms to it is for our friends and the greater cyberverse who only function in such terms.

This is a totally valid standpoint. But as you said, completely different from anarchy. Treaties are not pointless but often they are ill-conceived. There are reasons why people want to have MDPs that are not optional (because if they are optional you can't count on them) but I also understand that you often find yourself in morally question territory with obligatory defense pacts.

EDIT: My final statement to the OP is that you speak entirely in half-baked generalities. If there are so many 'laws' being broken then surely you could quickly summon a few to validate your statement. Instead you resort to trying to undermine my character. That is a hallmark of an argument without substance. I issue the simple challenge to explain 5 solid examples of treaties being broken not canceled in this war or 'laws' being broken.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Drostan

[Tulafaras]

endlessly repeating a statement does not make it more or less true.

If you want to argue that treaties are being broken left and right, maybe you should dig out those treaties and prove your point?

Almost every treaty has a cancellation clause, and yes in this war we have seen quite a few cancellations, but that sadly is not unusual. It often requires a catalyst to show how far two alliances have grown apart.

[Lord of Destruction]

The amount of treaty being broken is tremendous. The fact you have no idea what is happening, or has happened really is a testament to your naivety.

I'm not gonna point out the hundreds of laws broken during this war. If you believe there are few, you really have no clue.

You're right, time will tell.

As far as a single alliance having views without anarchy, that is comprehensible.

My question to the CN community, is what are the new laws? The old ones have obviously been obliviated.

First of all, Public Opinion doesn't create Bobian law. If it did, Yala Misr's polls would have actually meant something.

Secondly, claiming something is true, saying there is proof of it, then calling the person who is clearly much more educated in Bobian politics than you are naive is not the way to prove a point. In fact, it makes you look like a fool.

And lastly, if you wish for anyone to believe you, I suggest you gather proof of the 'hundreds' of treaties being broken.

[Chalaskan]

endlessly repeating a statement does not make it more or less true.

If you want to argue that treaties are being broken left and right, maybe you should dig out those treaties and prove your point?

Almost every treaty has a cancellation clause, and yes in this war we have seen quite a few cancellations, but that sadly is not unusual. It often requires a catalyst to show how far two alliances have grown apart.

I will not go through the mass laws broken by treaty here. Laws have been broken on several levels. If you don't know you are naive. With that I'll let you know that treaties are not just op clauses. There are many clauses within them.

Not to mention joining a war without one has been a breach before. There are various degrees of law being broken here. Like it or not, it's the truth.

[Lord of Destruction]

I will not go through the mass laws broken by treaty here. Laws have been broken on several levels. If you don't know you are naive. With that I'll let you know that treaties are not just op clauses. There are many clauses within them.

Not to mention joining a war without one has been a breach before. There are various degrees of law being broken here. Like it or not, it's the truth.

Continually stating something doesn't make it true.